Marissa Patel1, Humberto Salazar1, Arjun Watane1, Nicolas Yannuzzi1, Gregory Bounds2, Ashvini Reddy3, Sophie J Bakri4, Jayanth Sridhar5. 1. Bascom Palmer Eye Institute at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA. 2. University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, Texas, USA. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA; Athena Eye Institute, San Antonio, Texas, USA. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 5. Bascom Palmer Eye Institute at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA. Electronic address: jsridhar1@med.miami.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the representation of female ophthalmologists receiving private industry funding from 2015 through 2018, and to compare to previously observed trends. DESIGN: Retrospective, comparative trend study METHODS: The study population consisted of US ophthalmologists listed in CMS Open Payments Database. Data were reviewed for payments for research, consulting, honoraria, industry grants, faculty and speakers, royalties, and services other than consulting. The primary outcome measure was percentage of female representation compared to male in each sub-category of payment. RESULTS: The percentage of female, board-certified ophthalmologists who practiced in the United States ranged from 21.3% to 24.1%. The total number of reported ophthalmologists with industry ties ranged from 1629 to 1873, of whom between 17.2% and 19.4% were women. Women received significantly less industry compensation by than men in 2015 (median average $3273 vs $4825, P = .003), 2016 ($3600 vs $4750, P = .023), 2017 ($2493 vs $3500, P = .013), and 2018 ($2000 vs $3000, P = .011). Women remained underrepresented in receiving payments for research (ranging from 5.4% of total paid for research to 8.0%), consulting (11%-17.4%), honoraria (6%-14.9%), industry grants (4%-41.2%), royalties and licenses (0.1%-10.2%), faculty and speakers (11.6%-16.4%), and services other than consulting (8.4%-28.9%). Compared to 2013-2014, an increasing proportion of women received industry payments for consulting (P = .012), honoraria (P = .007), royalties and licenses (P = .019), faculty and speakers (P = .007), and services other than consulting (P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Female ophthalmologists remain underrepresented in terms of the percentage of women who receive private industry funding and dollar value of the funding.
PURPOSE: To report the representation of female ophthalmologists receiving private industry funding from 2015 through 2018, and to compare to previously observed trends. DESIGN: Retrospective, comparative trend study METHODS: The study population consisted of US ophthalmologists listed in CMS Open Payments Database. Data were reviewed for payments for research, consulting, honoraria, industry grants, faculty and speakers, royalties, and services other than consulting. The primary outcome measure was percentage of female representation compared to male in each sub-category of payment. RESULTS: The percentage of female, board-certified ophthalmologists who practiced in the United States ranged from 21.3% to 24.1%. The total number of reported ophthalmologists with industry ties ranged from 1629 to 1873, of whom between 17.2% and 19.4% were women. Women received significantly less industry compensation by than men in 2015 (median average $3273 vs $4825, P = .003), 2016 ($3600 vs $4750, P = .023), 2017 ($2493 vs $3500, P = .013), and 2018 ($2000 vs $3000, P = .011). Women remained underrepresented in receiving payments for research (ranging from 5.4% of total paid for research to 8.0%), consulting (11%-17.4%), honoraria (6%-14.9%), industry grants (4%-41.2%), royalties and licenses (0.1%-10.2%), faculty and speakers (11.6%-16.4%), and services other than consulting (8.4%-28.9%). Compared to 2013-2014, an increasing proportion of women received industry payments for consulting (P = .012), honoraria (P = .007), royalties and licenses (P = .019), faculty and speakers (P = .007), and services other than consulting (P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Female ophthalmologists remain underrepresented in terms of the percentage of women who receive private industry funding and dollar value of the funding.
Authors: Ashvini K Reddy; Gregory W Bounds; Sophie J Bakri; Lynn K Gordon; Justine R Smith; Julia A Haller; Jennifer E Thorne Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Amy R Deipolyi; Anton S Becker; Anne M Covey; Susan C Chimonas; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Howard P Forman; William A Copen Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 6.582
Authors: Allison R Larson; Kelly A Cawcutt; Meridith J Englander; Susan C Pitt; Eman Ansari; Howard Y Liu; Julie K Silver Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-03-02